Smith v. Hanuska et al

Filing 126

ORDER denying pltf's 3rd motion for reconsideration 123 , directing that the ct will not entertain any new motions for reconsideration re: either denial of Smith's MSJ or ct orders denying reconsideration of denial of Smith's MSJ, & directing that any such motion for reconsideration filed by Smith shall be stricken from the record. (See order for complete details.) Signed by Honorable Christopher C. Conner on 06/21/11. (ki)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
STEWART C. SMITH
Plaintiff
v.
OFFICER JOHN HANUSKA and
DAVID BIXLER
Defendants

:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:

CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:09-CV-0889
(Judge Conner)

ORDER
AND NOW, this 21st day of June, 2011, upon consideration of the third
motion for reconsideration (Doc. 123) filed by plaintiff Stewart C. Smith (“Smith”)
on June 21, 2011, wherein Smith seeks reconsideration of this court’s June 6, 2011
Order (Doc. 116) denying Smith’s second motion for reconsideration as untimely
and stating that the motion was merely an attempt to relitigate a “point of
disagreement between the Court and the litigant,” Abu-Jamal v. Horn, No. Civ. A.
99-5089, 2001 WL 1609761, at *9 (E.D. Pa. Dec. 18, 2001); see also Ogden v. Keystone
Residence, 226 F. Supp. 2d 588, 606 (M.D. Pa. 2002), and it appearing that the
purpose of a motion for reconsideration is to present newly discovered evidence or
to correct manifest errors of law or fact, see Harsco Corp. v. Zlotnicki, 779 F.2d 906,
909 (3d Cir. 1985), that the court possesses inherent power to reconsider its orders
“when it is consonant with justice to do so,” United States v. Jerry, 487 F.2d 600,
605 (3d Cir. 1973); Alea N. Am. Ins. Co. v. Salem Masonry Co. 301 F. App’x 119, 121
(3d Cir. 2008), and that a party may not invoke a motion for reconsideration as a

means to relitigate matters of disagreement with the court, see Abu-Jamal, 2001 WL
1609761, at *9, and the court concluding that Smith has neither presented newly
discovered evidence nor demonstrated that the June 6, 2011 Order (Doc. 116)
contains a manifest error of law or fact, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1.

The third motion for reconsideration (Doc. 123) is DENIED.

2.

The court will not entertain any new motions for reconsideration
regarding either, (a) the denial of Smith’s motion for summary
judgment, or (b) court orders denying reconsideration of the denial of
Smith’s motion for summary judgment.

3.

Any motion for reconsideration filed by Smith, as described in the
preceding paragraph, shall be stricken from the record.

S/ Christopher C. Conner
CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER
United States District Judge